British Columbia’s Human Rights Tribunal has entirely dismissed a complaint from a University of British Columbia graduate student who is also suing the university and four of its professors for $18 million alleging she was discriminated against because of her religious beliefs.

The tribunal said Cynthia Maughan’s complaints did not constitute discrimination. Her lawsuit is still before the courts.

Maughan, who is a Christian, alleged that a series of events starting with an e-mail in November 2000 constituted ongoing discrimination against her.

In an isolated e-mail, another UBC student said of a prominent Christian politician that he made him “recall fondly a time-period when Christians were stoned.”

Both Maughan and the other student — not named in the complaint or civil action — subsequently enrolled in a UBC graduate English class taught by Lorraine Weir.

In March 2001 Weir, following consultation and approval by all students in the course, scheduled a class for a Sunday at the other student’s home. Maughan later complained of the schedule and the venue, because the class was on a Sunday and because of the location.

The tribunal noted that Maughan acknowledged she did school work on Sundays and did not regularly attend church, but felt that attending the Sunday seminar violated her religious beliefs.

In October 2002 Maughan launched the $18-million lawsuit against UBC, Weir and three other professors.

The lawsuit then became the subject of a September 2003 article in the CAUT Bulletin (to read the article, click here). The lawsuit was also discussed at a 2004 conference at UBC, hosted by the UBC Faculty Association and CAUT, and later covered in the faculty association’s newsletter.

Maughan alleged that those events constituted continuing discrimination against her and she filed the human rights complaint naming UBC, the four professors named in the original suit as well as CAUT and the UBC Faculty Association.

Tribunal member Judy Parrack dismissed the human rights complaint in its entirety, finding some of the allegations were beyond the Human Rights Code’s six months time limit and those that weren’t — the publication by the UBC Faculty Association and the UBC conference — did not constitute discrimination.

“Ms. Maughan seems to suggest that if an individual responds to, or speaks of, an allegation of discrimination, that response serves to further the discriminatory conduct and thus constitutes a continuing contravention of the Code,” Parrack wrote in her decision released Jan. 20.

“With respect, I disagree. If Ms. Maughan were correct, it would mean that no respondent could defend or speak about allegations made against him or her in a public document.”

Maughan had alleged she was discriminated against by having her case discussed at the conference without being given an opportunity to speak. However, Parrack found that Maughan had not asked to speak at the conference and therefore had not been denied the ability to do so.

“Before the publication of the (conference) agenda, Ms. Maughan had filed a civil action against UBC and others,” Parrack continued. “It raised issues of importance to Ms. Maughan and to the named respondents. They are issues of importance to the academic community.

“Ms. Maughan should have expected the issues raised in her action to be the topic of discussion within the academic community. Engaging in this discussion does not, in my view, lead to the conclusion that those who spoke at the conference on this issue were doing so with the intention to discriminate against Ms. Maughan or to expose her to hatred or contempt because of her religion.”